It has become fashionable
these days, in a kind of snobbish way, to denounce 9/11 conspiracy theories.
"Conspiracy theories," the growing legion of detractors snort, "are absurd,
ridiculous, and beneath contempt. Not only that, they're harmful."

And, indeed, it's true; some conspiracy theories are absurd, and some
are harmful, but it's doubtful the absolutist position that all conspiracy
theories are absurd is also true. Couldn't some conspiracy theories be
true?

But my purpose isn't to defend this conspiracy theory or that, or to
pick the good from the bad, but to look at the way "conspiracy theory"
is used as a handy derogatory label to dismiss unpalatable and disturbing
views, while other views that are not so unpalatable or disturbing and
are just as much conspiracy theories, are accepted as reasonable; some
even as received truth.

In fact, what's branded a "conspiracy theory" and therefore is said
to be worthy of contempt, seems to depend on who's said to be doing
the conspiring.

Take the theory that holds that US President George W. Bush had foreknowledge
of the 9/11 attacks on US buildings, but did nothing to warn Americans,
knowing he could use their deaths to his advantage. This theory is denounced
as a monstrous slur, as having no basis in fact. And it's branded a
"conspiracy theory."

But if the same theory were invoked to explain the behavior of an official
enemy of the United States, or of the leader of a country Washington considers
a rival, what are the chances it would be denounced as a monstrous slur,
that has no basis in fact, and amounts to nothing more than base conspiracy
theorizing?

Slim to none, I'd say. And I believe this to be so, because there is
such a theory, and it has hardly been treated as absurd, ridiculous or
unthinkable. Indeed, it hasn't even been labelled a conspiracy theory.
But its features are no different than the "Bush had foreknowledge and
deliberately failed to act" theory.

Advanced by the chief UN prosecutor Carla del Ponte, this (unlabelled
conspiracy) theory says that former Yugoslav President Slobodan Milosevic,
had foreknowledge of NATO attacks on Serb buildings, and did nothing to
warn Serbs, knowing he could use their deaths to his advantage. In other
words, he did what some conspiracy theorists allege Bush did (or didn't
do.) And del Ponte has threatened to add the charge -- a conspiracy
view, just as much as the Bush one -- to the list of indictments
against Milosevic. So why isn't del Ponte's view branded a "conspiracy
theory" and dismissed as beneath our notice?

Or what of Russian president Vladimir Putin? How would a theory that
says Putin conspired to organize terror attacks against Russian civilians
to justify military intervention in Chechnya be received? Like the theory
that holds Bush responsible for conspiring to arrange terror attacks against
US civilians? Would the Putin-did-it view be denounced, as the views of
Jared Israel, Michael Rupert, and Michel Chossudovsky have been (who argue
the Bush administration was complicit in 9/11.) Indeed, would the Putin
as conspirator view even be called a conspiracy theory, or would it be
accepted as a view worthy of consideration by level-headed, reasonable
people -- hardly a "conspiracy theory" at all (though it very clearly involves
a conspiracy)?

The following, published in The Globe and Mail (June 27, 2002), Canada's
establishment newspaper, by Amy Knight, a respected university professor,
says yes; it would be considered reasonable, and wouldn't be called a "conspiracy
theory."

"In a third FSB-motivated case," (the FSB is the successor
of the KGB) "a Moscow court on Monday convicted former FSB officer Alexander
Litvinenko of abuse of office and stealing explosives. (He was given a
suspended sentence of three-and-a-half years.)

"Mr. Litvinenko, who lives under political asylum in Britain and was...tried
in absentia, fled abroad in late 2000, after running afoul of the FSB when
he came out with accusations that his employers had ordered him to kill
business tycoon Boris Berezovsky.

"More recently, Mr. Litvinenko co-authored a book accusing the FSB of
complicity in the 1999 apartment bombings in Russia that killed more than
300 people. The bombings, which Russian officials blamed on Chechen rebels,
aroused wide public support for a second invasion of Chechnya and helped
to catapult Vladimir Putin to power in 2000.

"The fact that the culprits were never found and that the FSB was subsequently
caught red-handed with explosives in an apartment building in the city
of Ryazan (the FSB claimed it was just a "training exercise") led Mr. Litvinenko
and many other Russians...to voice suspicion about FSB involvement in the
bombings.

"The prosecution...of Mr. Litvinenko, hurried through before a law making
in-absentia trials illegal comes into force on July 1, may be intended
largely as a warning to potential defectors from the security and intelligence
services that they would face severe reprisals if they followed in the
footsteps of these men.

"Given that both so openly and scathingly attacked their former employers,
the verdicts against them are not that surprising. Nonetheless, their cases
demonstrate that politically motivated trials, a holdover from the Soviet
era, are still a part of the Russian judicial system."

Notice that Litvinenko's allegations, not materially different from
the allegations of those who charge the US government with complicity in
the 9/11 attacks, are discussed in the context of a serious think-piece,
written by a serious academic, in a serious, establishment newspaper. Notice
too that Litvinenko's charges are not dismissed, and that the quality of
his evidence (whatever it might be), is not called into question. And importantly,
Litvinenko's views of a Kremlin-based conspiracy aren't called a conspiracy
theory.

Notice, moreover, that you haven't seen the views of Israel, Rupert
or Chossudovsky discussed in the mainstream press as serious allegations
worthy of anyone's attention. Indeed, the only sustained attention they've
received is in the Left American media, where they've been hysterically
denounced on the flimsiest grounds. (David Corn, writing in The Nation,
argues that Bush's fear of being caught would have deterred him from conspiring
in 9/11. Perhaps, Corn would have argued that Richard Nixon would have
never ordered the break-in of the Watergate Hotel, for the same reason:
he would have been afraid of being found out.)

Yet, notice how close the parallel is between the two views.

One theory says, Putin orchestrated attacks on Russian buildings, which
he then blamed on Islamists, to justify a war in Central Asia. The other
says, Bush orchestrated attacks on US buildings, which he then blamed on
Islamists, to justify a war in Central Asia. Suspicions are aroused because
Putin has offered not a shred of evidence that the Islamists did it, and
because the alleged culprits never actually said, "we did it," an odd thing
for terrorists to do. Moreover, the Russian security service was
caught placing bombs in Russian buildings. Suspicions are also aroused
because Bush has offered no sound evidence that the Islamists did it, and
because the alleged culprits have never actually said "we did it," an odd
thing for terrorists to do. Moreover, the US security service has a long
association with the alleged perpetrator.

Yet, despite the parallel, one's treated sympathetically and escapes
being branded a "conspiracy theory," while the other is reviled and ridiculed
as a "conspiracy theory" and circulates on the margins.

There's another parallel. While NATO was laying waste to Yugoslavia
in the spring of 1999, I was struck by how the media attributed base and
manipulative motives to non-NATO governments, particularly those of Yugoslavia,
Russia and China, while angelizing the motives of NATO countries. So, for
example, Milosevic's government was said to be inspired by ethnic hatred,
Russia's opposition to the bombing was imputed to Slavic ethnic solidarity,
while NATO governments were motivated by humanitarian concerns. Isn't dismissing
conspiracy as the basis for our own government's actions, while accepting
it as a possible basis for the actions of foreign governments, another
instance of angelizing our own leaders while demonizing foreign leaders?

And there' another level on which the labelling of views as conspiracy
theories is selective. While views that hold the US government responsible
for, or as being complicit in, the 9/11 attacks, are disparaged as "conspiracy
theories," the official view, which is every bit as much a conspiracy
theory, is accepted as a received truth. That theory, it will be recalled,
presented on no evidence at all, but with the demand that it be accepted
on faith, holds that Osama bin Laden, "a sinister mastermind", conspired
to have aircraft flown into the WTC and Pentagon because he hates American
"freedom and democracy." What's more, the White House peremptorily
dismissed requests to see evidence, and British Prime Minister Tony Blair's
brief he claimed proved the Saudi terrorist's culpability was a pathetic
farrago of leaps of logic and old newspaper clippings. In other words,
the evidence for the official conspiracy theory is no better, and a thousand
times weaker, than the evidence for antigovernment theories of only mediocre
quality. It's as if what amounts to a conspiracy theory and is worthy of
contempt is any set of unsubstantiated allegations other than the one set
forth by the White House, State Department and Pentagon.

You don't need a conspiracy theory to explain that. You need only point
to patriotism; the patriotism that holds foreign leaders conspire; American
leaders never do.

....

You may re-post this article, providing the text remains unchanged.

Join our e-mail list. Send an e-mail to What's
Left and write "subscribe" in the subject line.